Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.
61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
enhanced record to the source agency is
otherwise authorized and lawful.
(q) A record from a system of records
maintained by the ODNI may be
disclosed as a routine use to appropriate
agencies, entities, and persons when:
The security or confidentiality of
information in the system of records has
or may have been compromised; and the
compromise may result in economic or
material harm to individuals (e.g.,
identity theft or fraud), or harm to the
security or integrity of the affected
information or information technology
systems or programs (whether or not
belonging to the ODNI) that rely upon
the compromised information; and
disclosure is necessary to enable ODNI
to address the cause(s) of the
compromise and to prevent, minimize,
or remedy potential harm resulting from
the compromise.
(r) A record from a system of records
maintained by the ODNI may be
disclosed as a routine use to a Federal,
state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or
multinational agency or entity or to any
other appropriate entity or individual
for any of the following purposes: to
provide notification of a serious terrorist
threat for the purpose of guarding
against or responding to such threat; to
assist in coordination of terrorist threat
awareness, assessment, analysis, or
response; or to assist the recipient in
performing authorized responsibilities
relating to terrorism or counterterrorism.
(s) A record from a system of records
maintained by the ODNI may be
disclosed as a routine use for the
purpose of conducting or supporting
authorized counterintelligence activities
as defined by section 401a(3) of the
National Security Act of 1947, as
amended, to elements of the Intelligence
Community, as defined by section
401a(4) of the NationalSecurity Act of
1947, as amended; to the head of any
Federal agency or department; to
selected counterintelligence officers
within the Federal government.
(t) A record from a system of records
maintained by the ODNI may be
disclosed as a routine use to a Federal,
state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or
multinational government agency or
entity, or to other authorized entities or
individuals, but only if such disclosure
is undertaken in furtherance of
responsibilities conferred by, and in a
manner consistent with, the National
Security Act of 1947, as amended; the
Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of
2002, as amended; Executive Order
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
12333 or any successor order together
with its implementing procedures
approved by the Attorney General; and
other provisions of law, Executive Order
or directive relating to national
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:25 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 214001
16543
intelligence or otherwise applicable to
the ODNI. This routine use is not
intended to supplant the other routine
uses published by the ODNI.
Dated: March 18, 2008.
Ronald L. Burgess, Jr.,
Lieutenant General, USA, Director of the
Intelligence Staff.
[FR Doc. E8–5904 Filed 3–27–08; 11:00 am]
BILLING CODE 3910–A7–P–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0647; FRL–8546–3]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; State of Utah;
Interstate Transport of Pollution and
Other Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action approving State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Utah on March 22 and
September 17, 2007. The revisions
address Interstate Transport Pollution
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
of the Clean Air Act and a typographical
error in Rule R307–130–4, ‘‘Options.’’
The March 22, 2007 submittal adds
‘‘Section XXIII, Interstate Transport’’ to
the Utah SIP, and Rule R307–110–36 to
the Utah Administrative Code (UAC).
The new Rule R307–110–36
incorporates by reference the Interstate
Transport declaration into the State
rules. The September 17, 2007 submittal
amends UAC Rule R307–130–4,
‘‘Options,’’ by removing from the text
the word ‘‘not’’ which had been
accidentally placed in this rule. This
action is being taken under section 110
of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 27,
2008 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comment by April 28,
2008. If adverse comment is received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2007–0647, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich,
Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–
0647. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA, without going
through www.regulations.gov your e-
mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional instructions
on submitting comments, go to Section
I. General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
28MRR1
 16544 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly-
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202–
1129, (303) 312–6436,
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our
mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words State or Utah mean the
State of Utah, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State process to submit these
materials to EPA?
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State of Utah
March 22, 2007 Submittal
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State of Utah
September 17, 2007 Submittal
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:25 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 214001
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the purpose of this action?
EPA is approving the addition of
‘‘Section XXIII, Interstate Transport’’ to
the Utah SIP, and of Rule R307–110–36
(incorporating by reference Section
XXIII) to the Utah Administrative Code
(UAC). The Interstate Transport SIP and
Rule R307–110–36 were adopted by the
Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) on
February 7, 2007, and were submitted
by the Governor to EPA on March 22,
2007. Section XXIII of the Utah SIP,
Interstate Transport, addresses the
requirements of the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions of the CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). This section requires that
each state’s SIP include adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions that
adversely affect another state’s air
quality through interstate transport of
air pollutants.
EPA is also approving an amendment
removing the word ‘‘not,’’ a
typographical error, from the provisions
of Rule R307–130–4, ‘‘Options.’’ The
amendment to this rule was adopted by
the UAQB on June 21, 2007, effective
July 13, 2007, and submitted by the
Governor to EPA on September 17,
2007.
PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700
III. What is the State process to submit
these materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses
EPA actions on submissions of revisions
to a SIP. The CAA requires States to
observe certain procedural requirements
in developing SIP revisions for
submittal to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA requires that each SIP revision
be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing. This must occur prior to
the revision being submitted by a state
to EPA.
The UAQB held a public hearing on
December 21, 2006 for the addition of
Section XXIII, Interstate Transport to the
Utah SIP, and Rule R307–110–36 to the
Utah Administrative Code (UAC). The
new Rule R307–110–36 incorporates by
reference the Interstate Transport
declaration into the State rules. These
additions to the State SIP were adopted
by the Board on February 7, 2007, and
were submitted by the Governor to EPA
on March 22, 2007. Rule R307–110–36
became effective February 9, 2007.
The UAQB held a public hearing on
April 18, 2007 for a revision to UAC
Rule R307–130–4, Options, correcting a
typographical error. This revision was
adopted by the Board on June 21, 2007,
effective July 13, 2007, and submitted
by the Governor to EPA on September
17, 2007.
We have evaluated the Governor’s
submittals of these SIP revisions and
have determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under Section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA.
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State of
Utah March 22, 2007 Submittal
EPA has reviewed the State of Utah
Interstate Transport SIP submitted on
March 22, 2007, and believes that
approval is warranted. The ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provisions of the CAA,
Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i), require that the
Utah SIP contain adequate provisions
prohibiting air pollutant emissions from
sources or activities in the State from
adversely affecting another state. A state
SIP must include provisions that
prohibit sources from emitting
pollutants in amounts which will: (1)
Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state; (2) interfere with maintenance of
the NAAQS by another state; (3)
interfere with another state’s measures
to prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality; and (4) interfere with the
efforts of another state to protect
visibility. EPA issued guidance on
August 15, 2006 relating to SIP
submissions that meet the requirements
of Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM 28MRR1
 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards.
Section XXIII of the SIP, Interstate
Transport, submitted by the State of
Utah is consistent with the guidance.
To support the first two of the four
elements noted above, the State of Utah
relies on EPA assessments and modeling
analysis results published in Federal
Register notices as part of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) rulemaking
process.1 In addition, EPA has
examined factors specific to Utah and to
a number of downwind or potentially
downwind states that have the potential
to be significantly affected by any
transport of PM2.5 and ozone or ozone
precursors from Utah. Utah’s
neighboring states considered here as
downwind or potentially downwind
include Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
North and South Dakota, and Wyoming.
The Utah Interstate Transport SIP
addresses the question of potential
PM2.5 and ozone transport to other states
by quoting from the explanation given
by EPA in support of the exclusion of
seven western states (including Utah)
from the analysis that underlies the
CAIR notice of proposed rulemaking:
In analyzing significant contribution to
nonattainment, we determined it was
reasonable to exclude the Western U.S.,
including the States of Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah and
Arizona from further analysis due to
geography, meteorology, and topography.
Based on these factors, we concluded that the
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment
problems are not likely to be affected
significantly by pollution transported across
these States’ boundaries. Therefore, for the
purpose of assessing State’s contributions to
nonattainment in other States, we have only
analyzed the nonattainment counties located
in the rest of the US.2
Next, the Utah Interstate Transport
SIP quotes a paragraph from an EPA
April 2005 response to public comments
to the CAIR notice of proposed rule.
EPA’s response extrapolates from the
results of the modeling analysis
conducted for the January 30, 2004
proposed rule to validate the previous
decision to exclude Utah and other six
western states from the CAIR analysis:
Regarding modeling of all states, in the
PM2.5 modeling for the NPRM, we modeled
1 Unless otherwise noted, in this action the
expression CAIR rulemaking process or CAIR rule
refers to materials (data, analyses, assessments)
developed during the rulemaking process that
resulted in the May 12, 2005 Federal Register
notice ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate
Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ (70 FR 25162).
2 ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality
Rule); Proposed Rule,’’ January 30, 2004 (69 FR
4566). Alaska and Hawaii complete the list of states
not included in EPA’s modeling analysis.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:21 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000
41 states, and found that the westernmost of
these states made very small contributions to
nonattainment in any other state. For the
revised modeling for the final rule, we
reduced the set of states modeled for reasons
of efficiency. The results again showed that
the westernmost states modeled did not make
contributions above the significance
threshold, indicating that had other even
more western States been modeled they also
would not have done so.3
These assessments are substantiated
by data and consideration of additional
factors EPA examined. Findings from
the modeling analysis conducted by
EPA for the CAIR proposed rule include
the maximum annual average PM2.5
contribution by 41 states to the
downwind counties identified in
nonattainment for the base years 2010
and 2015. For the states included in the
study, the maximum PM2.5 annual
average contribution to nonattainment
by the westernmost states amounted to:
0.04 µg/m3 for Colorado, 0.03 for
Montana, 0.08 for Nebraska, 0.12 for
North Dakota, 0.04 for South Dakota,
and 0.05 for Wyoming (69 FR 4608).
These amounts are well below the
‘‘significant contribution’’ threshold of
0.20 µg/m3 set by EPA.
A review of the attainment/
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5
standard in these states and in Utah
yields similar conclusions. Utah’s
closest, potentially downwind, PM2.5
nonattainment area is centered in Libby,
Lincoln County, Montana, which is
about 500 miles north of the northern
Utah border. EPA’s findings based on a
nine-factor analysis of Lincoln County,
and reported in the Agency’s technical
support document for the December 17,
2004 designations, stressed the local
origins of PM2.5 nonattainment in
Libby.4 These findings, in combination
with other factors such as the absence
of PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Utah,
the distance between Utah and Libby,
and the absence of PM2.5 nonattainment
areas along the 500 miles between the
Utah northern border and Libby lead to
the conclusion that it is unlikely that
Utah is making a significant
contribution to the PM2.5 nonattainment
status of Lincoln County or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS in
3 ‘‘Corrected Response to Significant Public
Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Interstate
Rule Received in response to: Rule to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule); Proposed Rule
(69 FR 4566; January 30, 2004) Supplemental
Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air
Interstate Rule); Proposal Rule (69 FR 32684; June
10, 2004) Docket Number OAR–2003–0053,’’ April
2005.
4 ‘‘Technical Support for State and Tribal Air
Quality Fine Particle (PM2.5) Designations,’’
December 2004; Chapter 6, pages 347–352.
Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
16545
Montana. Similarly, the absence of
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Utah and
in the other neighboring downwind
states makes it unlikely that Utah
interferes with the maintenance of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS standard in
Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, South
Dakota, or Wyoming.
For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
our review of the attainment/
nonattainment status in Utah and its
downwind states confirms the EPA
positions incorporated by the State of
Utah into its Interstate Transport SIP.
Utah does not have any ozone
nonattainment areas, and the same is
true for all of its closest downwind
states, except Colorado. On this basis it
is plausible to conclude that Utah does
not contribute significantly to ozone
nonattainment, or interfere with ozone
maintenance, in the states of Idaho,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Several factors need to be considered
about potential ozone transport between
Utah and the Denver-Fort Collins
metropolitan area, in Colorado, which is
designated nonattainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. Certain
geographical, topographical, and
meteorological factors indicate that it is
unlikely that Utah contributes
significantly to the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment of the Denver-Fort
Collins metropolitan area. The 400
miles distance between Salt Lake City
and Denver, in combination with high
natural barriers such as the Wasatch
Range in Utah and several ranges of the
Rocky Mountains in Colorado,
constitute a sizeable physical barrier to
potential eastward transport of ozone or
ozone precursors from Utah to Colorado.
Also, observed days of high ozone levels
in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area
are usually associated with a ‘bowl
effect’ resulting from an inversion that
has a stagnant air pollution mass
surrounded by the Oquirrh Mountains
to the west, the Great Salt Lake to the
north, and the Wasatch Range on the
east. In contrast, high ozone levels in
the Denver metropolitan area are often
associated with light up-slope (easterly)
winds occurring at the surface level,
that keep ozone and its precursors
stagnating against the Front Range on
the west side of metropolitan Denver
and Fort Collins. In light of these
considerations, it is unlikely that Utah
makes a significant contribution of
ozone and/or ozone precursors to ozone
nonattainment in the Denver-Fort
Collins metropolitan area.
The third element of the Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions requires states
to prohibit emissions that interfere with
any other state’s measures to prevent
28MRR1
 16546 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
significant deterioration (PSD) of air
quality. The State of Utah’s SIP
provisions include EPA-approved PSD
and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) programs that have been
successfully implemented in past years.
For PM2.5, the State PSD and NNSR
programs are being implemented in
accordance with EPA’s interim guidance
calling for the use of PM10 as a surrogate
for PM2.5 in the PSD program. In
addition, Utah has committed to
transitioning from use of the interim
PM2.5 guidance to the final PM2.5
implementation guidance after this
guidance is finalized. EPA published
proposed regulations to establish this
guidance on September 21, 2007 (72 FR
54112).
The fourth element of the ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provisions concerns the
requirement that a state SIP prohibit
sources from emitting pollutants that
interfere with the efforts of another state
to protect visibility. Consistent with
EPA’s August 15, 2007 guidance, the
Utah Interstate Transport SIP declares
that, under the 1980 regulations
addressing Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI), in Utah
there are no sources that interfere with
implementation of RAVI in other states.
The Interstate Transport SIP refers also
to the Utah Regional Haze SIP submitted
to EPA in 2003 as an indication of the
State’s commitment to reduce impacts
on Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
Consistent with the EPA guidance cited
above, Utah will fully address in the
State’s regional haze SIP the
requirements for SIP measures
protecting visibility in downwind states.
Based on EPA’s review and analysis
of how the State of Utah addresses the
four elements identified in the ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provisions, we are approving
the State’s Section XXIII of its SIP,
Interstate Transport, as meeting the
requirements of the CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). We are also approving
the Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
Rule R307–110–36 which incorporates
Section XXIII of the SIP into the State
rules.
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State of Utah
September 17, 2007 Submittal
In its September 17, 2007 submittal to
EPA, Utah corrected a typographical
error in UAC Rule R307–130–4 by
eliminating the term ‘‘not’’ from its
language. This change is approvable as
it does not modify, and makes clearer,
the meaning of the rule. During the
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
required five year review of State rules,
the Utah Division of Air Quality,
Department of Environmental Quality,
discovered that the term ‘‘not’’ was a
typographical error. Rule R307–130–4,
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:25 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 214001
‘‘Options,’’ under the General Penalty
Policy Provisions of the UAC, reads:
‘‘Consideration may be given to
suspension of monetary penalties in
trade-off for expenditures resulting in
additional controls and/or emissions
reductions beyond those not [italics
ours] required to meet existing
requirements. Consideration may be
given to an increased amount of
suspended penalty as deterrent to future
violations where appropriate.’’ It is clear
that Utah intended for the rule to
indicate that monetary penalties
assessed for violations may be
suspended by the State in exchange for
a violator’s investment in additional
pollution control measure and/or
emissions reductions ‘‘beyond those
required to meet existing requirements,’’
thus, the change is appropriate.
VI. Final Action
EPA is approving, through direct final
rulemaking, the addition of Section
XXIII, Interstate Transport, to the Utah
SIP, and of Rule R307–110–36 (which
incorporates Section XXIII) to the Utah
Administrative Code (UAC), to reflect
that the State has adequately addressed
the required elements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act.
These revisions were adopted on
February 7, 2007, and were submitted to
EPA on March 22, 2007. Rule R307–
110–36 became effective February 9,
2007.
EPA is also approving the removal of
the word ‘‘not,’’ a typographical error,
from the provisions of Rule R307–130–
4, ‘‘Options.’’ The amended text was
adopted by the UAQB on June 21, 2007,
effective July 13, 2007, and submitted
by the Governor to EPA on September
17, 2007.
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. This rule will be effective
May 27, 2008 without further notice
unless the Agency receives adverse
comments by April 28, 2008. If the EPA
receives adverse comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. EPA
will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
28MRR1
 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 61 / Friday, March 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by May 27, 2008.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: March 12, 2008.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:25 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 214001
PART 52—[AMENDED]
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT—Utah
■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(65) to read as
follows:
§ 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(65) On March 22, 2007 the Governor
of Utah submitted the addition to the
Utah Administrative Code (UAC) of
Rule R307–110–36. This rule
incorporates by reference Section XXIII,
Interstate Transport, of the Utah State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
Interstate Transport declaration satisfies
the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). On September 17, 2007, the
Governor of Utah also submitted an
amendment to the UAC Rule R307–130–
4, ‘‘Options,’’ that removes from the text
a typographical error. It removes the
word ‘‘not’’ which had been
accidentally placed in this rule.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Addition to the UAC of rule
R307–110–36 that incorporates by
reference Section XXIII, ‘‘Interstate
Transport,’’ of the Utah SIP. Rule R307–
110–36 was adopted by the UAQB on
February 7, 2007, effective February 9,
2007, and it was submitted by the
Governor to EPA on March 22, 2007.
(B) Revision to UAC Rule R307–130–
4, ‘‘Options.’’ This revision removes
from the text the word ‘‘not.’’ The
amended text was adopted by the UAQB
on June 21, 2007, effective July 13, 2007,
and it was submitted by the Utah
Governor to EPA on September 17,
2007.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Replacement page for UAC Rule
R307–110–36 attached to the March 22,
2007 submittal letter by the Utah
Governor to EPA. The new page
correctly refers to Section XXIII of the
Utah SIP instead of the incorrect
reference to Section XXII included in
the corresponding page submitted with
the Administrative Documentation for
Rule R307–110–36.
■ 3. Section 52.2354 is added to read as
follows:
§ 52.2354 Interstate Transport.
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 standards. Section XXIII,
Interstate Transport, of the Utah SIP
submitted by the Utah Governor on
PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700
16547
March 22, 2007, satisfies the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated
by EPA in July 1997. Section XXIII,
Interstate Transport, was adopted by the
UAQB on February 9, 2007. The March
22, 2007 Governor’s letter included as
an attachment a set of replacement
pages for the Interstate Transport text.
The new pages reflect correctly that the
Interstate Transport declaration is under
Section XXIII of the Utah SIP and not
under Section XXII as incorrectly
indicated in the pages submitted with
the Administrative Documentation for
the adoption of this SIP section.
[FR Doc. E8–6275 Filed 3–27–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0959–200804; FRL–
8547–8]
Determination of Nonattainment and
Reclassification of the Memphis, TN/
Crittenden County, AR 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule finalizes EPA’s
finding of nonattainment and
reclassification of the Memphis,
Tennessee and Crittenden County,
Arkansas 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area (Memphis TN–AR Nonattainment
Area). EPA finds that the Memphis TN–
AR Nonattainment Area has failed to
attain the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (‘‘NAAQS’’
or ‘‘standard’’) by June 15, 2007, the
attainment deadline set forth in the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) for marginal
nonattainment areas. As a result, on the
effective date of this rule, the Memphis
TN–AR Nonattainment Area will be
reclassified by operation of law as a
moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. The moderate area attainment date
for the reclassified Memphis TN–AR
Nonattainment Area would then be ‘‘as
expeditiously as practicable,’’ but no
later than June 15, 2010. Once
reclassified, Tennessee and Arkansas
must submit State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions that meet the 8-hour
ozone nonattainment requirements for
moderate areas, as required by the CAA.
In this action, EPA is establishing the
schedule for the States’ submittal of the
SIP revisions required for the
E:\FR\FM\28MRR1.SGM 28MRR1